Re: Photoshop Portable 64 Bits Download
Tacio Allaire
Bit depth specifies how much color information is available for each pixel in an image. More bits of information per pixel result in more available colors and more accurate color representation in an image, thereby affecting the image size. Simply put, the file size of an image increases with bit depth because more color information is stored per pixel in an image having higher bit depth.
How can I edit/export the HDR in 32-Bit in Photoshop? All options I found would reduce the bit depth to 16 bits/component. Even when I open the 32-Bit half float HDR DNG created by Lightroom in Adobe Camera RAW i cannot find a way to move forward with 32 bits/component. Is there any workaround for this?
The Lightroom team is actively investigating and working on fixing this intermittent issue of UI panels becoming Black, and we are close to finding a solution for it, however, it is not yet in the most current update (6.9/CC2015.9). We are hoping to have it fixed in next update.
If you add your me-too vote to the bug report in the official Adobe feedback forum and follow that topic, you'll get notified whenever the status changes. (This forum is primarily a user-to-user forum.)
After you have opened the HDR image in Photoshop you can go to the Image->Mode menu option and choose 32-bit. However, you will discover that you have a very limited choice of tools to use in that mode. It's probably best to do as much of your editing in Camera Raw before opening the image in Photoshop..
How can I edit/export the HDR in 32-Bit in Photoshop? All options I found would reduce the bit depth to 16 bits/component. Even when I open the 32-Bit half float HDR DNG created by Lightroom in Adobe Camera RAW i cannot find a way to move forward with 32 bits/component. Is there any workaround for this?
I have some old JPEG photos that were shoot about 15 years ago on a consumer-level Canon, and I'm going to retouch them heavily, then save back into JPEG, and as a final step to share them on Web. They won't be printed.
Does it mean that while I edit them in Photoshop, it will be better to switch to 16 bits per channel (given that I will use the sRGB color profile, which is quite restrictive), so that 16 bits per channel will help me to avoid appearing different kinds of visual artifacts? (The artifacts like "banding"; the artifacts that appear when you lose some of your colors due to heavily adjustments of hue, saturatation, curves, whatever.)
As others have said, switching an 8 bits/channel file to 16 bits/channel does not gain anything - but neither does it lose anything. Those 256 levels in the original file are just slotted in to 256 distinct levels from the 65,536 available in a 16-bit/channel file. (Actually in Photoshop 16 bit there are 32,769 levels but that doesn't matter here).
It's not 16-bit (high bit) from the get-go, converting to that isn't going to buy you anything. And saving back as JPEG is going to cause even more data loss. IOW, converting to high bit doesn't magically give you more data.
I'd probably consider doing as much of the editing on layers or in something like Lightroom where you're doing parametric editing but when the rubber meets the road when the edits are applied to the original data, there is going to be data loss.
"Сonverting to that isn't going to buy you anything." - Yes, I do understand that opening an old JPEG in 16 bit won't somehow magically make it look better. What I mean is that it editing it in 16 bit may provide me more "room" to make different errors. Those errors will cause less damage. Or this isn't how things really work?
It really depends on what you want to do. By all means, toggling to 16-bit will give you much more headroom to do new additions, effects, gradations, etc, then export a final new render in 8-bit. It won't help you with the existing 8-bit elements, of course, but if you have a working file in 16-bit, you can do much more extreme levels and curves adjustments on the new 16-bit elements. This is totally acceptable to me as a workflow if that's all you had as source material.
And that's the whole point, right? You can't do anything with the existing image quality, but you can prevent further loss. So yes, it makes perfect sense. Convert to 16 bits and resave immediately to PSD or TIFF.
Also note that there is a new neural filter that specifically removes jpeg artifacts. I tested it out of curiosity the other day, and it seems remarkably effective. So I'd run that first. It can sometimes remove a tiny bit of genuine detail, so check visually and don't throw away the original.
However, when you then go on to make adjustments then 16bits/channel does have an advantage. In 8 bits/channel each adjustment calculates a new level and that is rounded into one of the 256 available levels. Then the next adjustment does the same and those rounding errors start to add up and you see stepping in the image (or combing in a histogram). By working in 16 bits/channel, values still are rounded but the number of levels means that the errors are much smaller and it takes an awful lot of cumulative adjustments before any become visible (if they ever become visible at all).
As an analogy. It's like having a ruler and marking points at 1,2,3, 4, 5 6 ....12 inches. Measuring those points with a second ruler accurate to 1/10 of a millimetre, does not make any difference to the position of those points.
However if you then make a series of calculations that will move those points and say each calculation has to be rounded so that the new position falls on a ruler point, using the 1 inch ruler will mean that after each calculation the result has to be slotted against distinct full inches. Whereas with the second ruler, all adjustments can be slotted into 1/10 of a millimetre steps. Which will be more accurate after several, even small, adjustments? At the end, the final result may be slotted back into the 12 inch ruler steps (the equivalent of exporting as an 8 bit file) but that final rounding done once is better than a series of roundings at each calculation.
However, when you then go on to make adjustments then 16bits/channel does have an advantage. In 8 bits/channel each adjustment calculates a new level and that is rounded into one of the 256 available levels.
The sampling is moot Dave. I get both 0/0/0 at any sampling and more importantly, a result from calculations whereby the entire image is black (gray with my settings), no differences. Why is that?
At least in your tourture test on a synthetic gradient, about the worst kind of data to test this on, the edits on the 8-bit per color image and the results on the 16-bit document are indeed, invisible.
I also converted the results of your tests, two TIFFs to device values in ColorThink Pro, even allowing one to be in 16-bit and the other 8-bit (not converting the higher bit to 8-bit). The differences in images between the two are invisible! We'd need to see a dE above 1 and change and that's not happening, even comparing the differing bit depths after those edits. CTP has x.xx precision here.
Again, based on my testing and colorimetric values, I see zero reason to convert 8-bit per color data to 16-bit, even using your admittedly good torture test on those gradients. On an actual photo? Even more invisible.
I have been working on Photoshop for quite some time now, but there is one thing that has got me confused till now. Is it better to be working on a 16 bit color mode or an 8 bit one? I know that the 16 bit should be better for images etc, as there are more colors to display, but on a file with lots of smart objects , what would be the best mode to work on? Also, does switching from 8 bit to 16 bit change the file size considerably?
Basically as a rule of thumb if you do not have any specific reason to use 16 bit color, then you do not need to use it. There's no real advantage for the final image to be 16-bit unless you expect your client to do extensive color manipulation.
A friend of mine who is a photographer told me once that he converts his images to 16-bit while editing to reduce a loss of quality. I always wondered if this really had a visible effect, so i tried the following:
Simply 16 bit image quality is quite better than 8 bit, because it contain more color that enhance the output Result/image. But the file/image size will be heavier than 8 bit, also it will use more memory (May be hang ur PC if file is large..... Some option may be disable in 16/32 bit.8 bit is almost OK in every prospect & I will suggest u to not go for 16/32 bit till the time u don't need it.
A 16 bits/channel image is roughly twice the size of an 8 bits/channel image, similar to a CMYK file being 33% larger than an RGB image. What I have not heard in any of the above discussions is the final output device. Although RGB files have a larger color gamut than CMYK files, most printers cannot accurately print the RGB gamut. It is a physical impossibility. Similarly, I would think that any advantages gained in using a 16 bit image would be negated by most printers. If anyone is old enough to remember hi-fi stereo components, think of it as having a turntable with the very best cartridge/needle, but then using crappy speakers. If the final output is intended for multi-media, then perhaps use the 16 bit image, keeping in mind that it is twice as large and will take longer to process.
d3342ee215